Opens in a new tab

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, 9 September 2026)

Date9 September 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1570/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0001570/2025
PartiesTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. , Tecno Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint Gmb…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Mannheim Local Division allows Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) to withdraw its infringement action against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and eight other defendants on EP 4 277 422, following a settlement with Transsion. It applies the 2026 version of Rule 370.9 RoP to the reimbursement request, although the action was filed earlier, and reduces the rate to 35%. The decision is of interest to parties to litigation campaigns run before several divisions.

Question

Which version of Rule 370.9 RoP governs a reimbursement request filed in 2026 in an action brought earlier, and may the regular rate be reduced?

Decision

The withdrawal is allowed, defendant 7’s silence being treated as implicit consent, and no cost decision is required (paragraph 1). The 2026 version of Rule 370.9 RoP applies, with a regular rate of 50% rather than 60%, the judge-rapporteur reduces it to 35% under Rule 370.9(e) RoP, citing among other things the intertwined structure of the requests, coordination between divisions, a complex confidentiality regime, a postponed preliminary objection on the FRAND-related claims and the separation of two patents, the rate being in line with the 25% applied in The Hague lead cases (paragraph 3). The value in dispute is set at EUR 4,000,000 (paragraph 4) and the reimbursement at EUR 12,950, on the fee scale in force before 1 January 2026 (paragraph 5).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 265, 370.9 and 370.11
Case law cited
Court of Appeal, 28 May 2025, UPC_CoA_808/2024, on the absence of a cost decision, HUROM v NUC, Court of Appeal, 26 May 2026, on the application of the amended Rule 370.9 RoP, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v Shenzhen Transsion, The Hague Local Division, 26 August 2026, on the 25% rate.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_1570/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le désistement est autorisé sans décision sur les frais. La règle 370.9 dans sa version de 2026 s’applique à la demande de remboursement et le taux ordinaire de 50 % est réduit à 35 % pour circonstances exceptionnelles.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 277 422Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Verifone (CFI, UPC_CFI_661/2026, 14
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.